I advocate maintaining the monarchy for Canada, partly because it's our tradition, but mostly because changing everything over to a republic would be lot of paperwork, for very little payback, in terms of how things actually work.

I don't really see the point in its adoption by countries that are not currently monarchial. Unless the monarch is invested with actual political power(which would be highly undemocratic), it's not going to change any of the things that supposedly ail a political system.

What you see above is proof that the conspiracy theorists are completely immune to facts, logic, and reality. It's very sad.

You wouldn't know reality if it drop kicked you in the face. The only "fact" here is that Obama's certificate is digitally altered and therefore worthless. As for logic, I'm surprised you even know the word.

I actually could do this, but it would take a lot longer to do than the 5 minutes it would take you to simply check it out for yourself. I also don't have a stylus board hooked up to my computer, so it's kind of hard for me to do good "art" (try handwriting your name with a mouse). There's also the issue of uploading it anonymously so you could download it (without being able to trace it back to me - I actually do value my privacy).

Yeah, this seems like a lame excuse on your part. I expected this kind of response from you though.

Okay then, again if doctoring the downloaded birth certificate is so easy to do then some other anti-Obama person must have already done this.

Some people really need to understand the concept of constitutional monarchy as being distinct from absolute monarchy. England and Scotland and later Britain had long since abandoned the latter by the time of the revolution.

I am not sayin the Westminster System is 'better' than the US system but it's not unreasonable to see some advantages.

I advocate maintaining the monarchy for Canada, partly because it's our tradition, but mostly because changing everything over to a republic would be lot of paperwork, for very little payback, in terms of how things actually work.

I don't really see the point in its adoption by countries that are not currently monarchial. Unless the monarch is invested with actual political power(which would be highly undemocratic), it's not going to change any of the things that supposedly ail a political system.

I'm confident that Titus desires a full-blown monarchy. If he's smart, he'd tolerate a Parliament, albeit one subservient to the king and ultimately dependent on its power.

I agree, the Commonwealther Nations should keep their monarchy. But the Queen doesn't really do anything. Her position is totally symbolic. It would be a more interesting discussion if she were to wield some actual power.

I actually could do this, but it would take a lot longer to do than the 5 minutes it would take you to simply check it out for yourself. I also don't have a stylus board hooked up to my computer, so it's kind of hard for me to do good "art" (try handwriting your name with a mouse). There's also the issue of uploading it anonymously so you could download it (without being able to trace it back to me - I actually do value my privacy).

Yeah, this seems like a lame excuse on your part. I expected this kind of response from you though.

Okay then, again if doctoring the downloaded birth certificate is so easy to do then some other anti-Obama person must have already done this.

Right?

Care to show me an example?

It's a lame excuse that I'm not willing to devote several hours of my life to indulge some stranger on Dave's ESL Cafe?

Go on youtube and search for it. There are several clips. All of which you can replicate for yourself if you actually stop being so lazy. If not, then I really don't care. Good luck with whatever you decide.

I'm confident that Titus desires a full-blown monarchy. If he's smart, he'd tolerate a Parliament, albeit one subservient to the king and ultimately dependent on its power.

I'm not a fan of democracy. Some democratic elements are probably needed to allow the people to blow off steam.

You could do it. You could allow the Monarch to dissolve Parliament at will. You could allow the Monarch a stout or invincible veto.

I'm open to it all. Here's what I would want, though: I would want common law rights and explicit personal protections. Citizenry would matter, and would entitle one to certain rights inviolate, rights even the King could not suspend without due process.

If there's an independent judiciary and such rights, then whats left is bargaining over succession. Hereditary succession is fine, but there must be some avenue for electors to keep idiot sons from taking the throne, even if the electors are a non-democratic body.

If the monarch is one with no governmental powers, what's the use of having a monarch?

The same use as is served by presidents in countries like Ireland, Italy, and Israel. With a bit of pageantry and historical romance thrown into the bargain.

Kuros wrote:

Quote:

I agree, the Commonwealther Nations should keep their monarchy.

Just for the record, not all Commonwealth countries maintain the monarchy. This is a bit confusing, because the Queen is the head of the Commonweath, but not the head of state in all Commonwealth countries.

And nowadays, you don't even have to be a former British colony to get in. Mozambique is a member. Not sure how that was arranged.

If the monarch is one with no governmental powers, what's the use of having a monarch?

The same use as is served by presidents in countries like Ireland, Italy, and Israel. With a bit of pageantry and historical romance thrown into the bargain.

Kuros wrote:

Quote:

I agree, the Commonwealther Nations should keep their monarchy.

Just for the record, not all Commonwealth countries maintain the monarchy. This is a bit confusing, because the Queen is the head of the Commonweath, but not the head of state in all Commonwealth countries.

And nowadays, you don't even have to be a former British colony to get in. Mozambique is a member. Not sure how that was arranged.

As is Rwanda, which is a bit of a surprise given its human rights record.

The fundamental problem with monarchy -- the problem that is from my perspective completely impossible to overcome -- is reliably finding a single person who can be entrusted with serious power for such a long length of time. We can't even seem to be able to handle producing someone up to the task of handling much more limited power for four years. And once you've committed to the system, you've committed to finding such a person not just once, but in every generation, and the consequences for selecting poorly are far greater than under our current system. A bad choice with President Bush got us years of Iraq; a bad choice with King Bush gets us a lifetime of similar misadventures. "Oh, but we won't choose a King like Bush!" Whatever: the same people who have influence over Presidential matters will have influence over Royal ones.

Moreover, it's all well and good to talk about rights, "Even the king cannot suspend without due process," but -- and this is something libertarian-inclined individuals seem to struggle with -- the world doesn't really work like a board game played by strict rules. It's all well and good if some Constitutional document somewhere says the King cannot suspend the right to public assembly, but if, after you've entrusted him with substantial power, he manages to capture the potency of whatever limited Parliament he's working with through other channels of influence and then decides to suspend the right to assembly, that paper isn't going to turn into some giant battle robot and dethrone him: the right in question will have been trampled, and that will become the new political status quo, and the "depoliticized population," like most serfs in history, will probably need to just accept it. Even our own Republican system is imperfect in this regard despite having serious checks in place, so I can't say I see the merit in easing those checks by handing a single individual such great power.

Monarch is ultimately a huge gamble with minimal potential payoff, and this doesn't even get into issues like dignity; GF is absolutely correct that there's a certain unique dignity to Monarchy, but that dignity is essentially transferred from the populace at large. The current system has defects, but the populace at large being able to make those mistakes affords them a level of dignity that may simply be more valuable than whatever scant material gains one thinks a Monarchy might afford.

Besides, let's get real: "I want a King" is really just a game of wish-fulfillment anyway, since anyone seriously advocating for a Monarch no doubt things that Monarch would put into place policies more to their liking than "the rabble" and their elected representatives have to date. How's Titus going to react when his new King doubles down on pro-diversity policies, or better yet, when his new Queen turns out to be a hard-core feminist? Somehow I think his enthusiasm would quickly sour.